Richard Welty <[email protected]> wrote: >Tiger also seems to have some roads which developers imagined might come >into >existence. i've found and deleted a few of these. > >old rail lines should be switched over to railway=abandoned if the >tracks are gone. >if they've been converted into cycleways it's ok to leave >railway=abandoned while >adding highway=cycleway.
Some of the local bogus "roads" seem to at least roughly correspond to irrigation canals. The ones that are no more than 3 or 4 foot wide ditches running through private property I'm inclined to just delete. I can't see that information, even if it was correct (it's not) being any use to anyone other than the various local irrigation districts. They have their own maps. Some of the larger canals are in fact 50 to 100 foot wide right of ways. Only a few hunks of these seem to show up as "roads". In some places they do in fact have unpaved service roads on one or both side of them. These are not public roads. There are locked gates. However, locals do walk and ride horses and bikes on some of them in the summer. Maybe I'll get ambitious next summer and take my GPS for a bike ride down some of them. The Bend Park & Rec. district has a pretty significant trail network that should get the same treatment. To further complicate matters a couple of the irrigation districts are busy converting canals into underground pipelines. Some of these will become more trails. <shrug> -- Jeff Barlow WB6CSV _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
